Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

U.S. Supreme Court Case Commentaries

Application of the Brooke Group Standard to Predatory Bidding: Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons

Application of the Brooke Group Standard to Predatory Bidding: Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons

Date: Feb 21, 2007
Application of the Brooke Group Standard to Predatory Bidding: Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons Introduction Weyerhaeuser Company v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., Inc., 549 U.S. 312 (2007), is a...
Limiting Punitive Damages for Harm to Nonparties: Insights from Philip Morris USA v. Williams

Limiting Punitive Damages for Harm to Nonparties: Insights from Philip Morris USA v. Williams

Date: Feb 21, 2007
Limiting Punitive Damages for Harm to Nonparties: Insights from Philip Morris USA v. Mayola Williams Introduction Philip Morris USA v. Mayola Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007), is a landmark decision by...
Application of the Brooke Group Test to Predatory Bidding Claims

Application of the Brooke Group Test to Predatory Bidding Claims

Date: Feb 21, 2007
Application of the Brooke Group Test to Predatory Bidding Claims Introduction The case of Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., Inc. addressed significant antitrust issues related to...
Statute of Limitations in Federal Habeas Corpus Relief: The LAWRENCE v. FLORIDA Decision

Statute of Limitations in Federal Habeas Corpus Relief: The LAWRENCE v. FLORIDA Decision

Date: Feb 21, 2007
Statute of Limitations in Federal Habeas Corpus Relief: The LAWRENCE v. FLORIDA Decision Introduction Gary Lawrence, Petitioner, v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007), is a landmark decision by the United...
Limiting Punitive Damages for Harm to Non-Parties: Analysis of Philip Morris USA v. Williams

Limiting Punitive Damages for Harm to Non-Parties: Analysis of Philip Morris USA v. Williams

Date: Feb 21, 2007
Limiting Punitive Damages for Harm to Non-Parties: Analysis of Philip Morris USA v. Williams Introduction Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007), is a landmark Supreme Court case that...
Exhaustion as Affirmative Defense under the PLRA: Supreme Court Sets New Precedent

Exhaustion as Affirmative Defense under the PLRA: Supreme Court Sets New Precedent

Date: Jan 23, 2007
Exhaustion as Affirmative Defense under the Prison Litigation Reform Act: Supreme Court Sets New Precedent 1. Introduction JONES v. BOCK, WARDEN, ET AL. (549 U.S. 199) is a landmark decision by the...
Cunningham v. California: Upholding the Sixth Amendment's Jury Trial Guarantee in Sentencing

Cunningham v. California: Upholding the Sixth Amendment's Jury Trial Guarantee in Sentencing

Date: Jan 23, 2007
Cunningham v. California: Upholding the Sixth Amendment's Jury Trial Guarantee in Sentencing Introduction Case: Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) Court: United States Supreme Court Date:...
Westfall Act Certification Conclusive for Removal: Supreme Court Sets Precedent in OSBORN v. HALEY ET AL.

Westfall Act Certification Conclusive for Removal: Supreme Court Sets Precedent in OSBORN v. HALEY ET AL.

Date: Jan 23, 2007
Westfall Act Certification Conclusive for Removal: Supreme Court Sets Precedent in OSBORN v. HALEY ET AL. Introduction The Supreme Court case OSBORN v. HALEY et al., decided on January 22, 2007,...
Exhaustion as an Affirmative Defense in Prison Litigation Reform Act: Jones v. Bock

Exhaustion as an Affirmative Defense in Prison Litigation Reform Act: Jones v. Bock

Date: Jan 23, 2007
Exhaustion as an Affirmative Defense in Prison Litigation Reform Act: Jones v. Bock Introduction Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that...
Inclusion of Aiding and Abetting in Theft Offense: Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez

Inclusion of Aiding and Abetting in Theft Offense: Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez

Date: Jan 18, 2007
Inclusion of Aiding and Abetting in Theft Offense: Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez Introduction Gonzales, Attorney General v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007), is a landmark decision by the United...
Aiding and Abetting Recognized as a Theft Offense Under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(G)

Aiding and Abetting Recognized as a Theft Offense Under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(G)

Date: Jan 18, 2007
Aiding and Abetting Recognized as a Theft Offense Under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(G) Introduction The Supreme Court case Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Petitioner, v. Luis Alexander...
Unified Causation Standards Under FELA: Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell

Unified Causation Standards Under FELA: Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell

Date: Jan 11, 2007
Unified Causation Standards Under FELA: Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell Introduction Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Timothy Sorrell is a significant United States Supreme Court decision...
Unified Causation Standards in FELA: Insights from Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell

Unified Causation Standards in FELA: Insights from Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell

Date: Jan 11, 2007
Unified Causation Standards in FELA: Insights from Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell Introduction Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell, 549 U.S. 158 (2007), is a landmark decision by the...
Resendiz-Ponce v. United States: Clarifying Indictment Requirements for Attempted Reentry

Resendiz-Ponce v. United States: Clarifying Indictment Requirements for Attempted Reentry

Date: Jan 10, 2007
Resendiz-Ponce v. United States: Clarifying Indictment Requirements for Attempted Reentry Introduction Resendiz-Ponce v. United States, 549 U.S. 102 (2007), addresses the sufficiency of indictments...
Authorization Requirements for Successive Habeas Corpus Petitions: Insights from Burton v. Stewart

Authorization Requirements for Successive Habeas Corpus Petitions: Insights from Burton v. Stewart

Date: Jan 10, 2007
Authorization Requirements for Successive Habeas Corpus Petitions: Insights from Burton v. Stewart Introduction Burton v. Stewart, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center, 549 U.S. 147...
Defining the Bounds of Indictment Specificity in Criminal Attempts: Insights from United States v. Resendiz-Ponce

Defining the Bounds of Indictment Specificity in Criminal Attempts: Insights from United States v. Resendiz-Ponce

Date: Jan 10, 2007
Defining the Bounds of Indictment Specificity in Criminal Attempts: Insights from United States v. Resendiz-Ponce Introduction United States v. Resendiz-Ponce (549 U.S. 102) is a pivotal Supreme...
MedImmune v. Genentech: Licensees Can Seek Declaratory Judgments on Patent Validity Without Breaching License Agreements

MedImmune v. Genentech: Licensees Can Seek Declaratory Judgments on Patent Validity Without Breaching License Agreements

Date: Jan 10, 2007
MedImmune v. Genentech: Licensees Can Seek Declaratory Judgments on Patent Validity Without Breaching License Agreements Introduction In MEDIMMUNE, INC. v. GENENTECH, INC., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), the...
BP America Production Co. v. Burton: Clarifying the Scope of 28 U.S.C. §2415(a) in Administrative Royalty Actions

BP America Production Co. v. Burton: Clarifying the Scope of 28 U.S.C. §2415(a) in Administrative Royalty Actions

Date: Dec 12, 2006
BP America Production Co. v. Burton: Clarifying the Scope of 28 U.S.C. §2415(a) in Administrative Royalty Actions A Comprehensive Commentary on the Supreme Court’s 2006 Decision Introduction BP...
Private Spectator Conduct in Courtrooms and Its Impact on Fair Trial Rights: *Carey v. Musladin*

Private Spectator Conduct in Courtrooms and Its Impact on Fair Trial Rights: *Carey v. Musladin*

Date: Dec 12, 2006
Private Spectator Conduct in Courtrooms and Its Impact on Fair Trial Rights: Carey v. Musladin Introduction Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006), is a landmark case adjudicated by the United States...
Musladin v. Carey: Clarifying the Boundaries of Spectator Conduct in the Courtroom

Musladin v. Carey: Clarifying the Boundaries of Spectator Conduct in the Courtroom

Date: Dec 12, 2006
Musladin v. Carey: Clarifying the Boundaries of Spectator Conduct in the Courtroom Introduction Musladin v. Carey, 549 U.S. 70 (2006), is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case that addresses the...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert